Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 15 September 2015 at 14:00 UTC at:http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-15sep15-en.mp3<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=NrFWbrBstcrPWP369qgbqlXiSKeL20xnUXzI03ZqpsvQufNa-2FQ3nA15qApF-2FSNfWza8WaTPll4f0yzsvpnRuYg-3D-3D_QuA5zZR9ZZ7J1F2FeF-2FOsgm1hgIDcBrAX2P7Ezxmql7ckJc4ios1-2BxObAoz2rzLSI3c4QB1NGo7bw7XrBjpRCbz74w4vzk48UxZMFoBBQBQaQ0ePdiOjdJ30sQNHkokOf-2F2p-2FBvMgKvMhzp-2B4u8fP-2BRrSytHe2KCf2HpQmtSbpezMgNTUG57PiORAPesOotpHA-2BC4pSmXJRsVmpbNaLqzstKpzCumvbYSGS7LFLZ1U2p8bG8BTCiTa5n040eh71mUGqPGZMigEbe1zgEF-2Ff0prftAQZ0la9baAmRWWCMUN2NXJxCzQh25VXsZLo4iWeZmJPeIMsQmVUJGRQkIx-2BowhLdSbubm58vlCI5EvqazlVf9vZ0NRcdhLTsHJqcsE-2BW9mUIsgPbF5tBJLo5Uz7hdZA0fEyAon114RcuUSdQfLjiPh2624EJGZiatYcONWOqld1NeG3bvYshKCtifHOGzTEJixzaCkKx8MmQTWx-2FZxo-2FLJLRsUkkXU0Fbg1Mq59R> On page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#aug>http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#s<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#sep>ep<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#sep> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Todd Williams ­ IPC Sara Bockey ­ RrSG Roger Carney - RrSG Frank Michlick ­ Individual Steve Metalitz – IPC James Bladel ­ RrSG David Hughes - IPC James Gannon ­ NCUC Alex Deacon - IPC Luc Seufer RrSG David Cake- NCSG Carlton Samuels - At–Large Graeme Bunton ­ RrSG Griffin Barnett - IPC Osvaldo Novoa – ISPCP Val Sherman ­ IPC Vicky Schlecker – IPC Terri Stumme ­ BC Holly Raiche ­ ALAC Kathy Kleiman - NCSG Lindsay Hamilton-Reid ­ RrSG Susan Kawaguchi – BC Iranga Kahangama - Apologies : Kiran Malancharuvil - IPC Don Blumenthal – RySG Michele Neylon - RrSG Susan Prosser RrSG Darcy Southwell – RrSG Stephanie Perrin ­ NCSG Phil Corwin – BC Sarah Wyld – RrSG ICANN staff: Mary Wong Marika Konings Amy Bivins Terri Agnew Nathalie Peregrine ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/9iCfAg Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 15 September 2015 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP WG teleconference on Tuesday, 15 September 2015 Graeme Bunton:Grabbing a Tea, brb Graeme Bunton:Tea'd. James Bladel:Monster Rehab? My new favorite tea. James Bladel:It wasn't "furious" it was only "brisk" and "purposeful." Holly Raiche:What is Monster Rehab??? Graeme Bunton:I prefer boring, generic orange pekoe/english breakfast black tea James Bladel:@Holly: Iced tea energy drink. Holly Raiche:@ Graeme - me too. Not sure about 'energy' drinks Frank Michlick:put yourhands up in the air Frank Michlick:I like Rojbois tea Frank Michlick:flavoured Terri Agnew:Vicky Sheckler has joined Mary Wong:Apologies, we can't show Word doc comments in PDF in AC :( So, yes, Todd, if you can point them out as you go along, that would be helpful. Mary Wong:But the comment "balloons" will show if you open the Word doc that was sent yesteday. David Cake:I'm an Early Grey tea guy mostly. I have a cup right now. Holly Raiche:I love the concept of "Early" tea Nathalie Peregrine:Luc Seufer has joined the call Nathalie Peregrine:James Gannon and Susan Kawaguchi have joined James Gannon:Apologies for my tardyness Mary Wong:That was a comment made as part of this individual's response to the WG's online template question for this recommendation. I don't believe any further details or explanation was provided. Nathalie Peregrine:Griffin Barnett has joined the call James Bladel:So "frivolous" or "harassing." Got it. :) Sara Bockey:+1 @Holly Mary Wong:Some common law jurisdictions will use the phrase "frivolous or vexatious" rather than "harassing" (which may be more of a US-centric word). David Cake:I'm ok with the frivolous and vexatious language. Familiar in common law jurisdictions as Mary says. Holly Raiche:@ Graeme - My guess is that we'll have to put verifiable on issues to get back to steve metalitz:@Holly, agree, and as Todd noted, if other criteria need to be added to the template to fulfill "verifiable evidence" standard, it would be timely to bring them forward. Holly Raiche:@ Steve - it's on our list to do - and come back with some suggestions James Gannon:Happy with that Nathalie Peregrine:Carlton Samuels has joined Carlton Samuels:Howdy all James Bladel:jees Carlton Samuels:My apologies. Multitasking again Holly Raiche:Hi Carlton Frank Michlick:too loud James Bladel:step back from mic, pls. Carlton Samuels:Hey Holly, I hope you shed a tear. Carlton Samuels::-) Holly Raiche:That was my question James Bladel:will defer to James G., the booming voice of God. val s.::) James Gannon:Sorry for booming voices, on a bad mic today James Bladel:How could you reach that conclusion without retaining the data from the first incident? Vicky Sheckler:agree w/ metalitz. We often see several indicators that the same actor/s are behind multiple sites engaged in similar styles of infrining activity steve metalitz:@James G, not a leap to try to ensure the information obtained is useful for the purpose for which obtained. As in my scenario, sometimes this involves retention . James Gannon:That would have to be addressed in a different framework as this is only for IP infringement reuqests James Bladel:at this point, they are alleged to be a "bad actor". But still a private dispute between two parties. steve metalitz:+1 to James G. re susan's example. This Annex is just for IPR claims. We anticipate that there would be different templates/ground rules for different kinds of complaints. Luc Seufer:@Steve I have thought about it, but I fail to see other templates/ground requiring a specific template. Carlton Samuels:IAt what point does the allegation cease to be a private dispute between parties and a trespass on the domain name system? Luc Seufer:I trust any other type of dispute would follow due process James Bladel:In the interests of moving this call forward, I'll drop from the queue. steve metalitz:@ Luc -- security/malware etc.? Susan kawaguchi:most of the malicious use also includes the use of our intellectual property so I am not seeing a distinction Luc Seufer:they wouldn't contact the PP provider I suppose, they would go to the hosting or IS provider Susan kawaguchi:we use registrant information all the time to connect domain names for security issues Mary Wong:Graeme? Graeme Bunton:Here? Graeme Bunton:weird! Graeme Bunton:will re join room Frank Michlick:can't hear you James Gannon:I out him to sleep Graeme Bunton:Yes, thanks Steve Luc Seufer:morse code now? Mary Wong:FYI we're now on Section III - Service Provider Action on Request James Gannon:PGP Encrypted Email wouldnt be a heavy ask in my opinon James Bladel:@James - it is a huge ask. Luc Seufer:@JamesG I still see law firms trying to send us 100meg UDRP complaint via email Alex Deacon:maybe one day we will have email key management via DNS a la DANE/DNSSEC :) Luc Seufer:and complaining it was rejected by our email system James Gannon:For clarity our request was only for the tranmission of the final contact details. Vicky Sheckler:re: III.B., once a valid request has been made that meets the requirements, S.P. should be obligated to provide the information. Vicky Sheckler:or say no and why, as Steve M is saying James Bladel:I'm on board with Steve's comment, especially if can swap (i) and (ii). Luc Seufer:Agreed too Alex Deacon:Agree. the "encouraged but not required to" guts this whole annex. James Bladel:@JamesG - but we do have flexibility, under (ii). Mary Wong:@James B, what do you mean by swap (i) & (ii)? steve metalitz:@ James G so you think after all this the service provider shoudl not have to respond yes or no to disclosure request? Alex Deacon:I don't believe we have ever considered an automatic disclosure process. Vicky Sheckler:think III.B. (i) and (ii) should stay in order they are in now James Gannon:@Steve: Persoanlly I can live with it, looking at the public comments looking for the removal of Annex E in its entirety I would have concerns. James Bladel:they can be merged Mary Wong:Per Steve M, the WG had previously decided not to mandate that a provider must allow the surrender option, since current practices is that some do offer it and some do not. James Bladel:surrender = deletion. Anything else would be an operational burden for providers & registrars. James Gannon:+1 James Holly Raiche:2 James B - agree with interpretation Mary Wong:Yes - the intent was not to mean transfer. Luc Seufer:so why not replace surrender by deletion? Alex Deacon:I'd like to see the merged text before I can commenet/agree. James Gannon:+1 Alex Mary Wong:@Luc, I think the original idea was to reflect the customer's choice to give up the service Holly Raiche:@ luc - fine with suggestion Luc Seufer:but the text says the domain name, not the service (i.e. removing the proxy) James Gannon:Great work, definintley food for tought on a critical aspect James Gannon:And I appreacite the groups from both sides of the field working together Mary Wong:@Luc, probably we can rephrase to the effect of "customer electing to give up its domain name registration, resulting in a deletion" or something like that. Luc Seufer:customer electing to have their domain name deleted. Luc Seufer:would be clearer IMO Mary Wong:OK thanks - we'll take that back to the sub team! Luc Seufer:thank you Mary James Gannon:Thanks all James Bladel:Thanks folks. val s.:thanks all Luc Seufer:thanks, bye all